Renault Kaptur (Russia)

Renault Kaptur (Russia): Which Version Should You Buy?

The Renault Kaptur (Russia) is an SUV 5-doors offered in its first generation from April 2016 through April 2020 and in restyled form from May 2020. Choosing between its versions comes down to four priorities.

The Renault Kaptur (Russia) is an SUV 5-doors offered in its first generation from April 2016 through April 2020 and in restyled form from May 2020. Choosing between its versions comes down to four priorities. The 1.6 MT offers the lowest kerb weight at 1,262 kg; the 1.6 CVT records the lowest combined fuel consumption at 6.9 l/100 km; the original 2.0 MT provides AWD with a Manual gearbox; and the restyled 1.3 CVT combines 150 hp with the quickest 0–100 km/h time of 10.1 seconds. The restyled 1.3 4WD CVT adds AWD while retaining the same 150 hp and 188 km/h top speed.

Generations and versions

The first-generation Renault Kaptur (Russia), produced from April 2016 through April 2020, used an SUV 5-doors body and had four versions. The front-wheel-drive choices were 1.6 MT and 1.6 CVT, both producing 114 hp and 156 Nm. Buyers seeking AWD could choose 2.0 MT or 2.0 AT, each rated at 143 hp and 195 Nm.

The first-generation restyling began in May 2020 and also contained four versions in the SUV 5-doors body. It retained 1.6 MT and 1.6 CVT with 114 hp and 156 Nm, then replaced the earlier 2.0-litre choices with 1.3 CVT and 1.3 4WD CVT. Both 1.3-litre versions produce 150 hp and 250 Nm, with FWD in 1.3 CVT and AWD in 1.3 4WD CVT.

The main numerical change is therefore concentrated at the more powerful end of the range. Compared with the earlier 143 hp 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT, each restyled 150 hp version adds 7 hp and 55 Nm while reducing displacement from 1,998 cc to 1,332 cc. The newer engine reaches peak torque at 1,700 rpm rather than 4,000 rpm.

Engine and gearbox specs

The naturally aspirated choices cluster around 71 hp per litre: 1.6 MT and 1.6 CVT produce approximately 71.3 hp per litre, while 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT produce approximately 71.6 hp per litre. The Turbo 1.3 CVT and 1.3 4WD CVT reach approximately 112.6 hp per litre. That is about 41 hp per litre more than the naturally aspirated alternatives.

Weight per horsepower also separates the versions. The original 1.6 MT carries approximately 11.1 kg per hp, while the original 1.6 CVT carries approximately 11.3 kg per hp. The 2.0 MT records approximately 9.7 kg per hp and the 2.0 AT approximately 9.8 kg per hp. After restyling, 1.3 CVT improves this ratio to approximately 9.0 kg per hp, while 1.3 4WD CVT records approximately 9.4 kg per hp.

Performance and fuel economy

For minimum recorded fuel use, 1.6 CVT is the clear choice in either period: its combined figure is 6.9 l/100 km. The restyled version reduces city consumption from 8.6 to 8.3 l/100 km, while its 6.0 l/100 km highway and 6.9 l/100 km combined figures remain unchanged.

For acceleration, the restyled 1.3 CVT leads at 10.1 seconds, making it 2.8 seconds quicker to 100 km/h than the restyled 1.6 CVT. It also consumes only 0.2 l/100 km more on the combined cycle. The 1.3 4WD CVT is 0.3 seconds slower and uses 0.3 l/100 km more combined than 1.3 CVT, but supplies AWD.

Among the original AWD versions, 2.0 MT is the stronger numerical proposition. It reaches 100 km/h 0.7 seconds sooner than 2.0 AT, has a top speed 5 km/h higher, and uses 0.9 l/100 km less combined. Buyers who specifically want an Automatic gearbox may still prefer 2.0 AT, but its performance and consumption figures do not match those of 2.0 MT.

Every listed version has measured acceleration, top-speed, city, highway, and combined-consumption figures; none of those values is not measured.

Dimensions, weight, clearance and wheels

Ground clearance and fuel capacity do not distinguish the choices: all versions have 204 mm of clearance and a 52 l tank. Weight does. In both periods, 1.6 CVT weighs 28 kg more than 1.6 MT. The original 2.0 AT is 15 kg heavier than 2.0 MT. Within the restyled 1.3-litre pair, adding AWD increases kerb weight by 61 kg and gross weight by 63 kg.

Wheel sizes are measured as 215/65 R16 and 215/60 R17 for every original version. Wheel-size figures for all restyled versions are not measured.

Which Renault Kaptur (Russia) version should you buy?

Choose 1.6 MT if low weight, a Manual gearbox, and FWD matter most. At 1,262 kg, it is the lightest option in both periods, and it is 28 kg lighter than 1.6 CVT. Its 171 km/h top speed is 5 km/h higher than that of 1.6 CVT, while its 12.5-second acceleration time is 0.4 seconds quicker. The trade-off is combined consumption of 7.4 l/100 km rather than 6.9 l/100 km.

Choose 1.6 CVT if fuel economy takes priority over acceleration. Its 6.9 l/100 km combined figure is the lowest in the range, and its 6.0 l/100 km highway figure is also the lowest. The restyled 1.6 CVT is preferable for city use on the available figures because it records 8.3 l/100 km, 0.3 l/100 km below the earlier version.

Choose 2.0 MT if you want an original-generation Kaptur with AWD and the best balance of performance and consumption among the two 2.0-litre versions. Compared with 2.0 AT, it is 15 kg lighter, 0.7 seconds quicker to 100 km/h, 5 km/h faster, and 0.9 l/100 km more economical on the combined cycle. It is also the only listed AWD version paired with a Manual gearbox.

Choose 2.0 AT only when the combination of the original period, AWD, and an Automatic gearbox is essential. It produces the same 143 hp and 195 Nm as 2.0 MT, but its 11.2-second acceleration, 180 km/h top speed, and 8.9 l/100 km combined consumption are all less favourable than the corresponding 2.0 MT figures.

Choose the restyled 1.3 CVT for the strongest overall performance-to-economy combination. It is the quickest version at 10.1 seconds, matches the highest top speed at 188 km/h, and records 7.1 l/100 km combined. Compared with the restyled 1.6 CVT, it adds 36 hp and 94 Nm while increasing combined consumption by only 0.2 l/100 km.

Choose 1.3 4WD CVT when AWD is worth the additional 61 kg and 0.3 l/100 km of combined fuel consumption over 1.3 CVT. Both deliver 150 hp, 250 Nm, and a 188 km/h top speed, but the AWD version takes 10.4 rather than 10.1 seconds to reach 100 km/h. On the supplied figures, 1.3 CVT is the performance choice, while 1.3 4WD CVT is the AWD choice.